Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Early Years Quality Fund Special Account Bill 2013. In so doing I would like to particularly draw attention to three aspects of this bill. Firstly, I would like to raise in this House what it is that the bill intends to do and the associated consequences. Secondly, I will talk about why I believe this bill is being introduced, which I think is to appease the unions, and why it is that the government should govern for all Australians and not just a select few in the union movement. Finally, I will talk about why it is so important that we have affordable and accessible child care, not only as a social imperative but an economic imperative as well.

This legislation seeks to establish a $300 million fund to provide wage increases to around 30 to 40 per cent of the long day care workforce over two years. However, in order to qualify centres will need to enter into an enterprise bargaining agreement with staff meeting eligibility criteria. Given the limited pool of funds, it will be on a first in, best dressed basis, and after the two years workers will revert to their previous wage.

I want to make it abundantly clear the coalition understands the need to recognise the importance of those who work in the childcare sector. However, the answer to looking at wages of those in the childcare sector is not to introduce bad legislation that will only make the situation worse, especially in the long run. We, on this side of the House, have very serious concerns about this bill. Our concerns stem from a number of reasons. First of all, the government already has a mechanism for determining wage increases. It is called the Fair Work Commission. This legislation brought before the House this evening seeks to circumvent this process and gives the government the power to appoint whatever they believe is the appropriate wage claim. I ask: what is the point of having an industrial relations policy and the Fair Work Commission only to ignore the process and for the government to take matters into their own hands?

This process of the government simply making a determination lacks transparency and in truth demonstrates that there was no process at all. We also have serious concerns about the requirements that must be met in order to gain access to this special fund. Centres will need to enter into an enterprise bargaining agreement with staff and meet eligibility criteria. Clearly this is an overt attempt to increase union membership and has nothing whatsoever to do with their wages or the sustainability or the viability of the industry. As a result of these tactics, we have heard some very concerning comments. There have been reports that centre management are being told that 60 per cent of their workforce must join the union in order for them to receive the pay rise. The Australian Childcare Alliance submission to the House of Representatives standing committee includes a statutory declaration to this effect. This is quite wrong.

There are also reports that some workers are being told that if they do not sign up to the union, then their colleagues will not receive a pay rise. These are bullying tactics at their best. Upon signing up to the union, at more than $500 a year in membership fees, they are then being falsely led to believe that this will guarantee them a pay rise, which is simply not the case. We have seen, through these tactics, a change in union membership in this industry from what was only 10 per cent of the industry to now more than 25 per cent as a direct result of this bill. This has clearly been the motive of the United Voice union, previously the LHMU.

We are also concerned that only childcare educators in long day care centres will be eligible for this pay increase. This is despite the fact we know their roles are very similar to those at family day care, occasional care and budget based care and all of these are excluded from the fund that this government seeks to legislate. Unlike the Labor Party, we on this side of the chamber recognise that there are inherent dangers involved in picking specific winners, especially within a single industry, and the very severe and distorting effects that this has on the remaining players in the market.

Let me go to why the bill is being introduced. Make no mistake that this, along with other pieces of legislation that have passed already in this place—including those that relate to the clothing, textile and footwear industry; the trucking legislation; the reregulation of ports; the legislation that is still before this place for the contrived rorting of the 457 visa systems and the dismantling of the ABCC—are union driven pieces of legislation designed to increase their power and their influence in the Australian workplace and in Australian society. We know that the government are beholden to their union masters. It was this week three years ago that the faceless men of the union movement took down one Prime Minister and installed another. I think they can be quite satisfied in their decision, given the legislation that I have just alluded to.

It was the United Voice Union that orchestrated the Big Steps campaign. It was through this campaign that the union warned that they will not stop until every educator receives a change in their pay arrangements, irrespective of the $300 million fund already proposed and without any consideration as to the price increases and what effect this will have on the affordability or long-term sustainability of the industry. But I suppose we can expect that because this has often been the attitude taken that, no matter what the impact, it is simply all about the union, even if that means that for the workers affected there may be no job in the future. United Voice have run a very false and misleading campaign. In one of their propaganda pieces of material they have stated under the heading, 'How does my centre qualify' to:

1. Join United Voice;

2. United Voice a negotiates new EBA;

3. Owner/Operator signs agreement with government;

4. Get raise.

This misinformation is continued despite the department writing to the secretary of United Voice back on 11 April to indicate that union membership is not a prerequisite. Despite all of these demands, the union has never made a wage claim to the Fair Work Commission, the appropriate body to handle these cases. Instead they have gone direct to government to ask for the funds without any rationale or justification. That is simply an indication of how this Labor government operates. It operates to help its union mates who, in turn, help fund their campaign and help work on their campaign. Is it any wonder when we consider that this union has donated more than $7 million to the Labor Party over successive elections—quite a significant amount, I think most people would agree. This is yet another example of how the unions think that they are above the law and normal due process and think they can circumvent these due processes and operate in their own environment.

I come to my final point, why it is so important to have affordable and accessible child care. In the time remaining to me I want to talk about why it is that child care in all its forms needs to be flexible, accessible and affordable to cater to the needs of those that require its service. In Australia it is clear that we have a participation issue. Only 76 per cent of women aged 25 to 54 are in paid work compared with over 80 per cent in other developed economies such as Canada and Germany. One of the most effective ways that we can lift the participation rate is to encourage women back into the workforce after childbirth if that is indeed what they want. Clearly the coalition's paid parental leave scheme is just one mechanism to assist with this. Another way is to ensure that individual families can access child care that caters to their needs.

In this modern economy, where women can work in many and varied environments, one size does not fit all and we know that affordability is one of the key aspects to whether or not the women and families in this country can access child care. That is why I am concerned about the changes the government has made to the childcare system, including the National Quality Framework and universal access. These regulatory changes, while potentially good in intent, have not been thought through, like so much of the government's actions. At the time we were promised by the minister that the changes would only result in an increase in costs of around 57c per week, yet the reality is that costs have gone up by more than $100 per week. I recently met with a number of childcare providers and local councils to talk to them about the impact of these additional regulations on the services that they themselves provide and the impact of maintaining current levels of staffing. They have told me that it has a very direct impact as to the cost of services and one council told me that the impact of upgrading a number of their capital structures in order to comply with the new regulations was more than $1.5 million. Who will ultimately pay for that? I think the answer is clear: it will be the parents who choose to send their child to that childcare centre.

In conclusion, we on this side of the House have serious concerns about this legislation. That is why we oppose it. We also have grave concerns about the direction of this government as a whole and the direction they have taken when it comes to child care. We, should we have the privilege of forming government after 14 September, have been upfront with the Australian people that we will work hard to make sure that we meet their childcare needs and have said that we will have a Productivity Commission inquiry into how we can make the childcare sector more affordable and more accessible to all who require the services. Unlike this government, when we look at an issue we do not simply ask the question, how can we help our union mates? We ask how can we help all Australians? How can we be a responsible government, a government that governs for all and will restore hope, reward and opportunity?

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Early Years Quality Fund Special Account Bill 2013. I find the comments by the minister in his introductory speech balanced against the actual effect of this bill to be an absolute farce and at odds with each other. This is a bill that seeks to provide $300 million over two years: $135 million in the first year and $165 million in the second year. It is about lifting wages for the workers in the childcare industry, but $300 million will not provide that increase for all workers in the childcare industry. I would have thought the one thing coming from a Labor Party driven by the unions, owned by the unions, would have been an equality for all workers—the same people doing the same job in the same environment getting paid the same amount of money. Isn't that what the union movement is supposed to be all about? But here we have a minister who is introducing a special fund for the benefit of a select few.

This was brought to my attention by one of my electorate's childcare directors, and I will not name her for a few reasons. She had real concerns. She came to see me with some of her workers. One of their concerns was that they were told by the union movement that to access this fund the workers in that centre needed to join the union movement. In fact, they needed seven workers to join the union before they could be eligible for this program. And that is a lie in itself because you do not need to be a member of the union to apply for this grant. However, they needed to sign up to the enterprise bargaining agreement to access this fund.

It is abundantly clear that this funding will provide a wage increase for only 30 to 40 per cent of the workers in long day care and only over two years. So here is the predicament that my long day childcare centre owner has. She has put it to her workers and they have decided: 'We might as well, so, yes, we have to join the union and we'll pay $500 a year each for the pleasure of joining the union. We'll enter into this enterprise bargaining agreement, we'll put our name down for this fund and if we get the funds for two years, what happens at the end of the two years?' Guess what? The fund goes, but how easy will it be to reduce the wages by that amount? That ain't going to happen, so parents are going to get slugged for an increase in childcare costs. And there is no guarantee on the funding coming through to that centre, so if the workers enter into the enterprise bargaining agreement and do not get the funding the costs of child care will have to go up from 1 July. How smart is that?

People in the industry, who actually understand the childcare industry and who interact with parents on a daily basis, want stability and affordable child care. And one thing that really disappoints and annoys those people is that this program seeks to drive division in the industry—division because some workers will get compensatoryfunding, others will not; division because this only applies to those workers in long day care, not those in preschools or in other forms of childcare provision.

One thing that the coalition did, and did well, was bring all of the workers involved in the childcare industry together. This bill is a farce. Do I think that childcare workers are worth more money? Absolutely. I am married to a person employed in the childcare industry and I see what they go through on a daily basis. I see the care and love that they provide to children who are not their own but who are put into their care. They are fantastic people and they work incredibly hard. I think this legislation is dangling a carrot at the end of a stick, which will only to be snatched away from them after two years—after they have made that commitment to pay $500 a year in union membership; after their employers have been locked into an EBA—and it will drive up the costs of child care.

Some queries came in from centre operators, particularly not-for-profit centre operators, in my electorate. One read:

The government has pledged funding for some educators for two years. Conditions apply such as signed workplace agreements. We're a small community centre in a very needy area.

Another one said:

Pay increases for some childcare workers and educators have already been contracted. The New South Wales branch of the union, Big Step, said only educators that signed the contracts would be getting the increases. This makes us worried. We're a small centre in—

a certain area—

Not many of us out here look after the real interests of the children. Thank you for reading my email.

The final one that came through read:

The Federal government funding pledge for some childcare workers have told and have read we need to sign contracts, work agreements for funding for two years only. Can you please spare the time to help our little community centre with only 39 children—cannot come up with this funding like the commercially owned. Thank you. I don't know what to do.

I met with them in my office. Their paramount concern was for the future of their workers and the care being provided to the children under their arrangements. If you have a condition where one centre is paying more, you are going to see a drain from one centre to another. What will happen at the end of the two years? Deputy Speaker, I am sure in your position and in my position as local members, if we got a pay increase for two years—if we signed up to an agreement and we entered into that as part of our workplace agreement—and then after two years that funding was pulled, are we going to happily sit back and say: 'That's great. It was great that it was there for two years and now, all of a sudden, we're expected to take a pay cut?' We know that will not happen. The cost of child care under this government will go up. That is an undisputed fact. For some parents it will go up immediately; for others, where it is being subsidised, the cost will go up in two years.

There is no doubt that childcare workers are some of the lowest paid people in this country and they deserve more. I found the second paragraph of the introductory speech by the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth, on 30 May, when this bill was introduced, rather offensive. He said:

Core to our values is giving every child an opportunity to succeed …

That is somewhat hypocritical because, if you are providing different funding for different child care, it means you will get different outcomes. So that is not giving every child an equal opportunity. Further, he said:

At the heart of this bill is this government's commitment to quality early childhood education, a commitment to early childhood education that is accessible and affordable and a commitment to having a highly qualified early childhood workforce.

That sounds wonderful, an absolute dream and something that should be achieved. But how do you achieve that if you are only providing a limited amount of money to cover a small percentage of the workforce for only two years? It cannot be done. So it is built on a false premise.

Finally, in the same speech, under the title 'Affordability and Accessibility', he said,

This government has been working hard to ensure that quality early childhood education and care remains affordable and accessible for all Australian families.

He kept repeating himself. This legislation is not sustainable by any stretch of the imagination. Further, in his speech, when he got into the targeted area of this Early Years Quality Fund, he said:

The fund, which will operate for two years, will enable grants to be paid services to supplement wage increases of all educators and staff assisting in the provision of quality early childhood education and care.

He used the word 'all' there. The fund does not cover all providers. So I am very disappointed but, in particular, people in my constituency are very disappointed. The people who work hard in a very low pay environment committed to the provision of quality child care are disappointed that, as they see it, they are being driven to join a union movement against their will to be able to access funds. What about freedom of choice in this country? It does not seem to exist.

What this bill is about is the government spending $300 million of taxpayers' funds to do nothing more than build union membership, under the Big Steps campaign, to give themselves sustainability and increased numbers in the trade union movement. So I oppose this bill. I want people to have higher wages—absolutely—but I want them based on productivity and affordability, and if the government is going to shell out taxpayers' funds they should be shelled out for all of the workers providing the same service, not for a select few—a select few that have been forced to join a union movement against their will. That is why this government and this bill need to be condemned.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to commend the member for Paterson and the member for Higgins for their speeches because I think they have summed up exactly what this bill, the Early Years Quality Fund Special Account Bill 2013, is all about. Sadly, it is this government giving another sop to the union movement. It is remarkable that we are debating it on this day, this third anniversary of Julia Gillard becoming the Prime Minister of our great nation, because that event was all about the union movement regaining control of the Labor Party—and, boy, are we seeing the Prime Minister repay the unions' faith in her in spades and that is what this bill is all about.

We have seen that with another bill we have been debating in this chamber in the last two weeks, the bill about 457 visas with the union movement looking for the government to crack down on the so-called rorting there—a union inspired campaign which the government decided to get behind. There is quite an irony as to that bill because it seems it is the media communications guru in the Prime Minister's office, on a 457 visa himself, who thought: 'Oh, there's a great convergence here. We've got the 457 visa issue which the unions want us to push and we can use that to try and disguise the issues that we have with our borders.' So they brought those two issues together in that bill, and now we are also seeing it here, because United Voice have run a very strong campaign to get action in this area. But it is not to get action on behalf of all childcare workers and it is not to get action to see wages rise across the sector in a fair way. It is a call to arms by United Voice to get the Gillard government to act on behalf of them. That is what is so shameful about this piece of legislation because, as the member for Paterson identified, what it does is divide worker against worker and it divides various segments of the childcare sector against each other. What we on this side cannot understand about this Prime Minister is why she continually wants to divide Australian against Australian. Why is it? Leadership is not about division; leadership is about uniting. Yet this Prime Minister seems hell-bent on just making one Australian be pitted against another Australian be pitted against another Australian. It is not the way to govern a nation.

Let us go to the specifics of the bill. What is it about? It is about providing a commitment of $300 million over two years to various members of this sector—and I say various members of this sector, not all. How do you see whether you can qualify for some of this $300 million? The government have set up a seven-member panel which has responsibility for deciding the criteria that centres will need to meet in order to be eligible for the funding. How have they gone about establishing who should be on that committee? Have we got a wide range of voices? Have we made sure that we have got the sector as a whole well represented on that seven-member panel? No, we have not. But what have we made sure of? Who have we made sure are represented on that seven-member panel? It should come as no surprise. United Voice, of course, are on that panel. But do we have private sector engagement on that panel? No, of course not. Heaven forbid that we could have broad representation on it, but, my word, have we insisted that United Voice get one seat? Yes, we have.

What then are the guidelines that are going to lead how this funding is allocated? They are still yet to be determined, meaning we are unable to consider whether they are even fair and reasonable. So here we are debating this legislation, which is going to dish out $300 million over two years, and we have a seven-member panel set up—and we know that United Voice are on that—but what are the criteria? No criteria! But we have seen, through United Voice's campaign—and can I say it is a fairly deceitful campaign—the type of guidelines that they would like to see. They would like to make sure that the union is front and centre when it comes to allocating these funds. They would like to see, whether a centre has an EBA or not, the level of union membership that a centre has within its workforce. That is the key criterion that they would like to see. We will wait and see whether or not the government actually puts that in the criteria, but there is no doubt that, by giving United Voice representation on that seven-member panel, those are the things they will want to bring to the table.

And what does it mean for the other types of child care? What does it mean, for instance, for family day care? What does it mean for occasional care? What does it mean for budget based care? They are excluded entirely from this funding. I have already had an approach from an occasional care provider in my electorate in Warrnambool. They are incredibly fearful of what this means for their ongoing viability. It is worth mentioning because occasional care is sometimes frowned upon by the other side for being there for those who can afford it. I tell you: when you go and sit down and talk to the parents, grandparents or carers who use occasional care, it is often the most needy and vulnerable who use it, yet, through what the government is doing here, it is going to make it harder for them to continue to employ people. It is going to threaten the ongoing viability of this sector. That means that the poor and the needy who use occasional care—those parents, grandparents and carers—are going to be left with little alternative. Often it is the single parents who have to use it the most, yet, through this piece of legislation, the government is going to make it harder for those occasional care providers to operate. I ask anyone on the other side, if they query this, to come down to Warrnambool. I would love to take them to the occasional care centre there and to get them to talk to the parents, grandparents and carers so that they can hear firsthand what this piece of legislation has the potential to do.

So there are serious problems with this bill. They come on the back of other pieces of legislation which have been introduced to this House and which have also caused considerable concern to the sector. I will say about these two other initiatives the government has put in—the national quality framework and the universal access—that they at least have the right intent, whereas this bill before us today does not have the right intent. It has been singly about making sure that United Voice has got the policies that they were seeking, in many ways, it is worth reminding the House, rewarding them for their support for the Labor government. Let us not forget that, as the member for Higgins put on the record, $7 million has been donated over the last two election campaigns by United Voice to the Labor Party. That is what is driving this piece of legislation.

What drove the national quality framework and universal access was good intent, and we on this side recognise that. Of course, the implementation has, sadly, been lacking and has caused a lot of concern within the sector. So why, having caused that concern and still trying to bed down the disruption which has been caused by the national quality framework, including the increased amount of staff necessary to implement the national quality framework—and, of course, with universal access there are the difficulties in getting the staff needed to implement it—has the government come and sought to divide the sector by presenting this piece of legislation, which we know and the government has admitted cannot cover the whole workforce in the childcare sector? As a matter of fact, it is expected that it will only cover between 30 and 40 per cent. So you bring in two pieces of legislation, which caused concern through their poor implementation, and then you bring in this piece of legislation, which will divide the industry. It will only cover 30 to 40 per cent of the workforce. As I have said before, that is going to pit centre against centre, but it is also going to pit against each other the types of child care provided.

So what does the coalition want to offer in this space? In the first instance, it wants to offer good governance. It wants to say to United Voice: 'Do this properly. Don't go to the government and say you want a cosy deal. Use the system. Put in an application through the proper channels to get a pay rise for the childcare sector workforce as a whole. Let's work so that the whole sector can get the type of remuneration that the sector deserves and that we on this side recognise that it deserves. Don't go and do a cosy deal which shows that, once again, it is the union movement that has the strings to pull to get this Prime Minister in particular to do what it wants done. Use the proper process.'

What else do we want to do? We want to make sure child care is affordable and accessible for all, whether it be in metropolitan areas or in regional and rural areas. We will embark on that process. We will look at ways to make sure everyone in the sector can make sure they continue to provide services which are affordable and accessible. It will not just be long day care centres; it will also be family day care, occasional care, budget based care and others excluded entirely despite their roles being very similar.

There is one thing that the Leader of the Opposition has made clear—that is, we want to get away from this politics of division. We want to get away from this politics of representing part of the community and then pitting that part of the community against another part of the community. We want to get back to where the national interest comes first, where the community comes first and where all Australians come first—not a government which seems hell-bent and a Prime Minister who seems hell-bent on making sure that the only way government occurs is by dividing the nation.

On this side, we are opposed to this bill. We can see it transparently for all it is—that is, repaying United Voice for everything they have done in getting rid of a Prime Minister three years ago and putting in a new Prime Minister to be at the beck and call of the union movement. It is a shameless piece of legislation. It covers only 30 to 40 per cent of the workforce. It covers only one sector of child care. It is not about improving the sector as a whole; it is about rewarding the union movement and that is why we oppose it.

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When they want to oppose something, what do they default to? Good old union bashing is what we are seeing from the other side. It is extraordinary. They are straight into it. They talk about the national interest. The national interest is educating the future of this nation and caring for the welfare of the future of this nation which is children, and ensuring that they get a quality education. Members will be aware of my passion for education. In my first speech in parliament, I spoke about how I was proof of the transformative powers of education and it is a sentiment I have repeated again and again. Through education, I escaped the cycle of disadvantage. There are thousands and thousands more like me.

Often when I speak of education, I focus on primary schools, high schools or even universities. These are the years of education we remember, so they feel the most formative to us. However, countless studies, countless pieces of research and countless experts tell us that it is the early years of education that make the biggest difference—and the Jesuits tell us that as well. There is a compelling body of evidence showing that 90 per cent of a child's brain development happens in these critical early years. These are the formative years. These are the years we need to get right if we are to give our children all the opportunities they deserve.

I am very pleased, therefore, to be talking tonight about the Early Years Quality Fund Special Account Bill 2013, which seeks to improve quality outcomes for children in early childhood education and care services by enhancing the professionalism of the sector and improving the attraction and retention of a skilled and professional workforce. I am very proud of this Labor government's record of achievement in early childhood education and care. This government have been working hard to ensure that quality early childhood education and care remains affordable and accessible for all Australian families in the national interest.

We are investing a record $25 billion over the next four years in early childhood education and care, of which $22.1 billion will be in direct childcare assistance to parents. We have also delivered nearly $970 million between 2008 and 2013 to provide all Australian children in the year before they start primary school with access to a quality preschool education, delivered by a quality, qualified early childhood teacher.

These investments are already paying off. Recent data shows that because of this investment preschool enrolments have increased. In 2012, 266 four- and five-year-old children were enrolled in a program in the year before full-time school. This was 60,000 more children enrolled in 2012 than in 2008. So we have seen a dramatic increase in preschool enrolments.

In this year's budget, the government announced a further $666 million to extend the universal access commitment to quality early childhood education in the year before school to the end of 2014. The Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth has also announced that this year the early childhood education and care Closing the Gap target will be met—a significant development. In 2008, the Labor government pledged to deliver access to early childhood education to all Indigenous four-year-olds in remote communities within five years, and we have achieved that. These are significant achievements for this sector and I am particularly proud to be part of a government that has delivered them.

The bill we are debating tonight supports a very particular aspect of early years education—that is, supporting the employment retention and better pay of more highly qualified staff. Specifically, this bill establishes a special account to administer the Early Years Quality Fund. The fund will provide $300 million over two years to assist long day care services to offset the costs of employing higher qualified staff, who are required as part of the National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education and Care from 1 January next year. Funding will be provided directly to eligible services to improve quality outcomes for children by supplementing wage increases of $3 per hour for cert III qualified educators. There will be proportionately higher wage increases for diploma and degree qualified educators.

Australian and international research shows that having educators with higher qualifications is closely associated with improved outcomes for children. More highly qualified staff have a better understanding of early childhood development and this results in better and more targeted education and care for our children to help them learn and develop.

Funding for wage increases will be assessed and approved based on a defined set of criteria and these are: a demonstrated commitment at the service to quality outcomes for children under the National Quality Framework, including a detailed plan to meet NQF qualification requirements; an agreement to use grant funds exclusively for wage increases, including detailed acquittal of funds to improve transparency; a commitment to affordability for families through fee restraint limited to actual operating cost increases, and no increases as a result of wages arising from the operation of the fund; increased fee transparency requirements for services, including explaining to parents the level of financial assistance provided by the government through childcare benefit and childcare rebates; meeting specific reporting requirements for the government's online childcare portal MyChild; and wage increases being included in an enterprise bargaining agreement.

In my electorate of Canberra I have visited many early childhood centres and met wonderful staff, gorgeous kids and wonderful parents. I know that the staff in these centres—who are mostly women because early childhood workers are still predominantly women—are incredibly committed to the children they care for. Earlier this year I spent one morning and one afternoon at a childcare centre at Isaacs in my electorate, walking in the shoes of a childcare worker as part of the Big Steps campaign. In the morning, I spent time with babies, changed nappies and cleaned lots of little bottoms, entertained these children, put them to bed, and through each half-day I spent a lot of time with kids in every age group. It was an absolutely delightful experience—but absolutely exhausting.

Looking after all these children on such a scale with all their different needs, and particularly with little ones going down at different times—so putting them down and getting the others up at the same time; taking them outside to play; keeping an eye on them and keeping them entertained, because at that stage you really do need to spend a lot of time entertaining them; as well as having them en masse trying to keep them all happy—it was exhausting on both of those half-days. I told the staff that I saluted them. I take my hat off to them for the work they do, caring for these children but also keeping them stimulated and educated.

I particularly admired the real rigour around the whole process for the day. If the children were playing with a toy, then the educator would observe what they were doing and repeat the experience of what they learned from playing with that toy. Or, if they were playing with other little children, then the educator would assess what the child was learning from that experience—the use of words, colours, sharing activity and team-building activity. There was not just a lot of play there but also a lot of education happening. There was a lot of assessment going on about the education of these children.

What particularly impressed me was that the educators could pick up on those kids who were quite often a bit shy—those who were not as socially advanced as the others in the same peer group or the same age group. They could pick up on that child and spend some time with them trying to encourage them to interact more closely with their peers or just spend some one-on-one time trying to draw out their strengths and the specific qualities of these children. So it was not just a case of an en masse approach to these small children. They were there as educators but they were also doing assessments throughout the time that I was with them, and throughout their day, on the advances that each child was making, and also attempting to fill those gaps, which I think was particularly important. Again, they were applying a rigour to it in doing an assessment in writing of that child. I understand that assessment goes into a system so that you can see the development of the child over the period of that child is in child care.

As I said, what would appear to be just playing with building blocks, looking at colours and reading books actually had this underpinning of learning and education throughout the day. I was incredibly impressed and absolutely exhausted after those two half-days.

This bill acknowledges the commitment of those workers by securing higher wages in recognition of their professionalism and qualifications. It is important to note that the establishment of this fund is intended only as a first step in a process that will, in time, see an overhaul of the remuneration of the entire early childhood workforce. This government has also announced the establishment of a pay equity unit in the Fair Work Commission. The primary role of the unit will be to assist the Fair Work Commission with data and research collection and specialist pay equity information. Of particular importance, it will assist in a long-term overhaul of pay equity in feminised workforces. The pay inequity at the moment not only causes day-to-day pay inequity but also means that women are going into superannuation with less money. They get less superannuation and so go into retirement with less money. I have said many a time in this House that I have had these women presenting at my electorate office every week.

It is also important to note that these wage increases are designed not to put upward pressure on fees. In fact, one of the conditions of receiving this funding is that there are no fee increases as a result of the wage increase that will occur from the fund. We know that parents and carers cannot afford to pay higher fees. That is why this government is taking action to increase wages while ensuring that fees do not increase. According to research by United Voice, childcare fees have risen on average by 11.2 per cent in the last 12 months—from $63.21 to $70.29 per day. Both the early childhood sector and families are under pressure in this regard and this bill has a requirement to contain childcare fee increases, meaning staff will get an increase in wages without fees going up.

This Early Years Quality Fund builds on steps this government has already taken to ensure we have a better qualified, better paid workforce in the early childhood sector. These initiatives include: the TAFE fee waiver that enables students to obtain a diploma or an advanced diploma in children's services without paying fees; the recognition of prior learning initiative, which provides grants of up to $3,500 to enable educators to have the skills they have acquired through working in the sector recognised and enables them to obtain or upgrade their qualifications; the HECS-HELP initiative, which provides funding to reduce the Higher Education Loans Program debts of early childhood education teachers who work in areas of high need such as remote areas of Australia; and the Inclusion and Professional Support Program, through which the educators and services receive professional development and support to enhance the provision of quality education and care services.

As I have mentioned, the early childhood workforce is a feminised workforce—it is predominantly women. As is too often the case in workforces dominated by women, early childcare workers are amongst the lowest paid skilled workers in this country. Workers have been fighting long and hard to receive professional wages in the early childhood sector. In particular, as I mentioned over the past year or so, the Big Steps campaign has united workers, parents, families and employers to support wage increases for early childhood educators. I have spoken to these parents in the afternoons. I have been there in these childhood centres talking to the staff and meeting the kids. I have spoken to the parents and they have all pushed for an increase in wages for the workers, the educators who are educating their children.

To the hundreds of people who contacted me in my electorate of Canberra, I say to them: firstly, thank you for sharing your concerns with me on this important issue and, secondly, we listened. This government is taking action. Higher wages are deserved by these skilled and qualified workers. Higher wages will help keep workers in the sector and higher wages will help attract more and better staff. As we know, we have a chronic lack of qualified staff in this sector at the moment, which is dramatically affecting childcare availability. This fund puts us on track to reform wages in this sector and it puts us on track well into the future. Qualified and skilled early childhood workers deserve this bill. Most importantly, our kids, our future and our nation deserve this bill. I commend it to the House.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Early Years Quality Fund Special Account Bill 2013. Before I get to the specifics of the bill I would like to say what a wonderful job that the many childcare centres in the electorate of Hughes actually do. As a member, I have had the great pleasure to visit many of these childcare centres and participate in the activities with the staff: reading books to the kids, playing with them and enjoying their ice-creams at lunchtime. It was a truly wonderful experience. There is no doubt that we would like to see the staff at these centres earn more money, like we would many employees right across the economy.

However, the childcare centres I have been to say their biggest problem is with government regulation and red tape putting additional cost on those childcare centres. In fact, over the last few years under this government we have seen a 26 per cent increase in the cost in childcare in this nation, mainly because of the red tape this government has put in. When those costs increase and the costs to a childcare operator increase because of the red tape, that simply takes away their ability to pay their staff more wages. So the ability to pay the staff more wages, to get higher wages in the childcare centre, has been taken away by a lot of the red tape and new regulations we have seen this government introduce.

The legislation actually seeks to establish a $300 million fund to provide wage increases, which are estimated to go to only 30 or 40 per cent of long day care workers and only over two years. Also, centres will need to enter into an enterprise bargaining agreement with staff and meet the eligible criteria. Given this limited pool of funds, they will be allocated on a first-in basis and then after two years the workers will simply revert to their previous wage.

The coalition oppose this bill, regrettably. We would like to see childcare workers earn more money, take home more pay, but there are several reasons for opposing this bill. The first reason is this is $300 million worth of spending this government simply does not have. This is simply more spending that will be added to our nation's debt. In the first four years of this government we have seen the largest deficits in our nation's history, a cumulative $172 billion. Then we had promise after promise after promise of this year the budget being returned to surplus. Of course, we know that that $1 billion surplus is now, at last estimate, a $19.8 billion deficit. This $300 million for childcare workers simply goes onto that deficit. It is more money that we have to borrow. Ultimately, it is money that has to be paid back. In fact, it is actually the children at these childcare centres who will be burdened with this debt and who will be paying off this debt when they eventually get through school and get through university and start to earn dollars. Their taxes will be higher because of this government.

The other reason the coalition oppose this bill is that we looked at what industry has said. The Australian Industry Group, a group that represents 440,000 businesses and employs over 2.4 million people, said of this legislation:

… Ai Group expresses a strong view on the proposal to make funding conditional upon day care centres having an enterprise agreement. This proposal is unfair and inappropriate.

How can this government sit here and want to pass this legislation through the parliament when we have the Australian Industry Group saying categorically that this proposal is unfair and inappropriate? That alone is reason not to pass this legislation.

It will set two types of childcare centres: those that are unionised and those that are not unionised. The real concern is this funding is actually over only two years. The question is: what happens when those two years are up and this funding runs out? We are going to see a massive distortion in the childcare market with staff going from one centre to another hoping to get their hands on some of this money, which in two years is going to run out.

Another real concern is what has been told to some of the staff in the childcare industry, which makes it very clear that this money is more a taxpayer funded union recruitment drive. Workers have been told that if they do not sign up to the union they will not get a pay rise. We have seen employees signing up and then having to pay the union fees. They are committing to pay more than $500 a year to the union to sign up to get their hands on this taxpayer money, which the government does not have and is borrowing. We have seen some centres' managers being told that 60 per cent of their workforce must join the union in order for them to receive the pay rise. We have also seen in the Australian Childcare Alliance's submission to the House of Reps standing committee a statutory declaration to this effect. This is not something that the coalition is saying; this is something that the Australian Childcare Alliance has put in a statutory declaration to the committee.

Of course, we have seen a great deal of union propaganda about this, again a recruitment drive. We have seen under the heading 'How does my centre qualify?' the statement: '(1) join your union United Voice; (2) United Voice negotiates a new EBA; (3) the owner-operator signs the agreement with the government; (4) get a raise.' Of course, it does not say that you must pay the union fees along the way. It does not say that this money is borrowed money. And it does not say this money will run out after two years. This is typical of this government: bad legislation done to support their mates in the union rather than doing what is in the best interests, the long-term interests, of the nation.

The Australian Industry Group have also put forward 10 separate points about their objections to this legislation. I would like to go through each one of those. The first is that this requirement will simply remove the ability of a childcare centre to freely choose whether an enterprise agreement suits its business. We should be giving the childcare centres the ability to choose which way they want to operate, but this forces them down the track of going into an enterprise agreement. The second reason given is that a childcare centre could feel coerced to make an enterprise agreement, regardless of whether the business is happy with its pay-setting arrangements. Again, it reduces the individual ability of a childcare centre to determine what is best. The third reason given is that employees of a childcare centre could feel coerced to make enterprise agreements, regardless of whether the majority of employees of that centre support the negotiation of a collective agreement.

The fourth reason given is the requirement may lead to a childcare centre breaching section 344 of the Fair Work Act, which prohibits an employer from exerting undue influence or pressure on an employee to make an enterprise agreement. In fact, the Fair Work Act 2009 outlaws the taking of an adverse action against a person simply because that person has or has not exercised a workplace right. Sections 340 and 341 include the right to make or not to make an enterprise agreement. The act also outlaws action taken against another person with the intent to coerce the other person to exercise or not to exercise that right. It is clear that what is going to happen is there will be coercion in this industry because of this money, the $300 million thrown in, to force and coerce workers to sign up to enterprise agreements to try and get their hands on these funds for two years whether they like it or not.

The fifth reason the Australian Industry Group have given is that enterprise agreements typically reduce the ability of an employer to pay employees different salaries based on individual performance, a pay-setting system which many employees strongly support. I am sure there are many childcare centres around our nation today that have different salaries based on different individual performance. That encourages greater participation, higher levels of productivity and greater work ethic. But this legislation threatens to take away that ability. The sixth reason given is that, if a childcare centre decides not to have an enterprise agreement, it is going to experience greater difficulties in attracting and retaining staff, because the centres with enterprise agreements would be able to pay higher rates of pay due to the funding. We are looking at having a two-tiered system. We are going to have the potential of good staff at one centre being attracted to another centre for no other reason than the one centre has been handed out government money and the other has not. This is not good policy.

The seventh reason is that, if employees in a childcare centre are not willing to enter into an enterprise agreement, say because they prefer the existing pay-setting arrangements, the employer would experience greater difficulties in attracting and retaining staff. Again, this is likely to damage many of our childcare centres. Yes, it will be good for the 30 per cent to 40 per cent that get their hands on this pot of borrowed money that runs out in two years, but the other centres, the 60 per cent that will miss out on this pot of money, will be put at a competitive disadvantage and they will have difficulty retaining and hiring staff. That has the potential to cause damage to our childcare centres, not improve them.

The eighth reason given is that if a childcare centre decides not to have an enterprise agreement it may need to raise its prices to attract and retain staff, given the higher pay rates offered by centres which receive funding, creating hardship for parents. That is exactly right. If we have two centres in one suburb and one is unionised, so they get their hands on this pot of money, and the other centre is not, how will that centre retain its staff? It might have to lift its wages. Deputy Speaker Georganas, you might say that could be good, but we must think of the hardship for parents. If we raise our childcare fees, it would be wonderful if we could pay them. Someone has to pay for this at the end of the day. If we lift the cost of child care in this nation then what happens? It is the parents from the most disadvantaged backgrounds and the people from the lowest socioeconomic areas of our nation who have difficulty in paying, and they miss out on getting child care altogether. What looks on the surface like a great, wonderful and generous idea, if it leads to this happening, will price many parents out of child care.

Parents across our nation today are really struggling with the cost of living. Next week they are going to be slugged with an increase in the carbon tax of five per cent. They are going to see their electricity prices hit again. The last thing they need is a government policy that is going to further lift the cost of child care and make it difficult. How will that help any of the kids in our nation?

The ninth reason that they give—a very good reason—is:

Concerns have been expressed to Ai Group by employers in the child care industry about the complications which are likely to arise when the funding is exhausted. Childcare centres may not be able to afford to continue to pay the higher wage rates without increasing prices.

Again, there are two things that could happen: we are building in a price increase in the childcare industry or we are going to create a situation where people go into the childcare industry, take some of this pot of money and when that pot of money runs out in two years they are likely to leave the childcare industry and look for jobs with equivalent wages. This is a bad bill. The coalition rightly opposes it.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise this evening to speak against the Early Years Quality Fund Special Account Bill 2013. While the objectives of the bill may be sound, it has some deleterious consequences. The member for Hughes, who spoke very eloquently before me, outlined many of them here this evening.

Before I go into my concerns—and I have four to outline this evening—let me say a couple of things about the objectives of the bill and also the process for getting to where we are here. First of all, the objective. Ostensibly, the objective of this bill is to support the wage increases of workers in the childcare sector. We have no problem with this objective; it is an admirable objective because, as you would probably be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, childcare workers are not paid high salaries. They are paid ordinary salaries, like many other workers in the Australian community, so we have no problem with the objectives as such.

What we have difficulties with is that there is a process within the community and a legal framework that is already established for seeking legitimate wage increases. That process is through the Fair Work Commission. One can lodge claims there and people have the right to do so. We support those people with that right to lodge a claim. We submit that this would be the right process to go through in order to receive a salary increase, rather than coming into the parliament and having the parliament legislate a salary increase through a two-year special compensation package.

It is interesting to note that the union which is primarily behind this push has not lodged any formal request to the Fair Work Commission for a salary increase. Rather, the union is going to its puppet masters here in the Labor government and is getting a $300 million gift by going through this process rather than going through the process which every other Australian has to go through.

Let me also say about the process to get to where we are with this bill that I, along with the member for Grey, who will be speaking subsequent to me, sat in on a very brief inquiry which looked into this bill. One of the difficulties we had with this is that this bill was rushed into the parliament, rushed into an inquiry—we had one week at the most to look into this and to try to make some sensible findings—and then pushed through this parliament in the dying days of this government. This government has known that the election will be on 14 September since the beginning of the year. If this bill were so important, the government could have scheduled it properly so that it had a proper chance to be debated and considered, for a parliamentary inquiry to properly undertake an investigation and to improve the bill should that parliamentary inquiry find ways to improve it. But the government has not done that. To the contrary: it has rushed it through in the last couple of weeks along with many other pro-union bills in order to try to get them through in the dying days of this government. That is no way to run a country. This bill is illustrative of the very poor processes which this government undertakes.

Let me go to the substance of the bill. As I said at the outset, I have four concerns in relation to this bill and the effects it will have, despite having no objection to the objectives of the bill. My first concern is in relation to equity. The particular provisions will be of benefit to only about 40 per cent of childcare workers, while 60 per cent or more of childcare workers will miss out on this benefit. If we think that childcare workers are underpaid then surely all childcare workers should receive the salary increase rather than just 40 per cent of them. Many submissions to the public inquiry and other publicly made submissions make this exact point: that there is great inequity here that such a small section of the sector will be beneficiaries of this $300 million fund but the vast majority will not receive any of that funding.

My second concern relates to the fact that the bill, despite it going to have the effect of putting up salaries for at least 40 per cent of the childcare sector, has provision in it for only two years of funding. So years one and two are covered and provide that additional salary boost for 40 per cent of childcare workers, but after that there is no funding.

Ordinarily, if we have a program that is going to be ongoing it would be legislated for in the forward estimates for four years. That is how things are ordinarily done if you are serious about making a particular measure an ongoing one. But it seems that this government's only purpose for this bill is to get them through the election. It is to be sop to the unions to show that they care, to give them two years of funding and then to say, 'You will look after yourself after that.' But salaries will not come down after two years and someone else will then have to pay for those salaries—and that someone else, as the member for Herbert outlined, will be the parents. It will be the parents who have to pay for that.

So we have before us a structural fee increase in the childcare sector through this provision which will come into play in two years time if this bill goes through. That is what we have before us. It will be a further 10 per cent increase on childcare fees per day—a $10 per day increase—that parents will have to pay in two years time because the funding is only for that short period of time. Again, this government are not serious about this. If this government were honestly concerned with childcare workers' salaries and putting them on a sustainable ongoing footing, this would be for a four-year period and it would be an ongoing program—but it is not.

My third concern—and this is perhaps my greatest concern with the bill—is that it is basically just a sop to the unions. The bill does not specify precisely that one must be a union member to be a beneficiary of the $300 million fund, but that is how it is being interpreted across the sector—and, in practice, that is what is occurring. That is understood; it is known. It was the intent of this government to do so from the get-go, and that is the primary purpose of this bill. The primary purpose of this bill—make no bones about it—is for the Prime Minister to shore up the support of another union. The Prime Minister's leadership is under significant threat in the dying days of this government. She needs to get herself through these couple of weeks so that she can be Prime Minister leading up to the election, and she thinks that she can buy off an additional union through this particular measure. It is a $300 million purchase.

And it is not just this side of the parliament who is saying this, who is using such strident language. The Australian Childcare Alliance, who represent about 60 per cent of the childcare sector in this country, have written to all members of parliament with the following words:

The Federal Government's recent release by the Prime Minister of a Grant funded program with $300 million to be paid over a two year period to lift the wages of early childhood educators, is nothing more than a gift by the government to the United Voice Union.

That is the Australian Childcare Alliance. They are the peak body for the childcare sector in this country. They themselves are saying that this is nothing more than gift by the government to the United Voice Union—a $300 million gift.

They also outline in their letter that each new member the United Voice union will recruit as a result of this process will pay about $572 per annum. And we know that that money will then be used at election time to support the re-election of the Gillard government—or the Rudd government or the Shorten government, whichever it may be come 14 September. That is how this is working. It is taxpayers' funds going to the union and then from the union being used to try to get the Gillard-Rudd-Shorten governments re-elected. It is an outrage—and it is such an outrage because it is not the first time this has been done.

We have in fact seen a similar pattern in the aged-care sector, where a very similar arrangement is being made to try to reunionise the aged-care sector in the dying days of this government. We have seen similar sweetheart deals in relation to the right of entry provisions which have been introduced by this government in recent weeks, which mean that any workplace in the country is in danger of a union official rocking up and entering into the lunchroom and trying to recruit members. No lunchroom is safe after the introduction of those provisions.

We have also seen it in relation to the aggressive attacks on the 457 visas which the immigration minister has unleashed over the last couple of weeks—attacking all of those terrific workers that we have in this country. Why are they doing that? They are doing it because the unions do not like the 457 visas and they are delivering for their paymasters in terms of cracking down on them. This bill is in the same vain as all of that. It is just a sop to the unions, as the Australian Childcare Alliance has said, and as we have seen elsewhere over the last few weeks in terms of delivering for their unions in the dying days of this government purely to shore up support for Julia Gillard personally to stay in the job for another couple of weeks.

Finally, my fourth concern is in relation to the centres that are not eligible for this funding. As I said at the get-go, only about 40 per cent of centres will be eligible to receive some of this $300 million in funding and 60 per cent of centres will receive no such funding but they will be negatively impacted by this bill. Why is that? It occurs because, if the salaries go up in 40 per cent of the childcare centres, naturally there will be additional claims made by the workers in the 60 per cent who are not beneficiaries of this bill. Those childcare centres will then have two choices. They can try to keep salaries at a lower rate compared to the 40 per cent—in which case they are likely to lose workers. They will find it difficult to retain staff and they will find it difficult to attract staff, particularly at a time when there is an acute shortage. That is one choice that they have, but they will have difficulties retaining and attracting staff.

The other option they have is to put up salaries, but knowing that that would have to be immediately passed on to the parents who use their childcare centre. It is estimated by the Australian Childcare Alliance that fees would have to go up by about $10 per day. This government has already passed a myriad of regulations in relation to the childcare sector, which is putting fees up by 10 to 15 per cent and pricing people out of the market. This bill will have the effect of putting up fees by an additional $10 per day. That will just mean that the people who are already struggling to make ends meet, already suffering from the increases in the carbon tax, already suffering from all the other prices that are going up as a result of this government's mismanagement and over-regulatory zeal, will then have to pay higher childcare fees on top of all of that.

The government was forewarned in relation to its regulations by the Productivity Commission that fees would have to go up 15 per cent if it went through with them. It went ahead with its regulations. We are forewarning the government here, as has the Australian Childcare Alliance, that if it goes ahead with this now, then fees will go up an additional $10 on top of that. That is what is at stake here. It is actually the affordability of child care centres. We think they need to be made more affordable, not less.

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What fine words from the member for Aston, who sums up very well what this move by the government is about. As he said, I was the deputy chair of the Standing Committee on Education and Employment that did a very rushed inquiry into this bill, the Early Years Quality Fund Special Account Bill 2013. I did speak on that report when it was tabled in the House, but I thought I would take this opportunity to further tease out some of the issues that I raised at that time.

I was very disappointed that we were not able to give this bill the consideration that I believe it needed. We had one short hearing from the department and a number of submissions—in fact, quite a number; 99, if I remember rightly—to the House of Representatives committee—largely expressing some distress with the legislation it must be said. Yet we had no time at all to call any of those contributors to come before the committee and express their concerns.

Earlier today the member for Barker spoke in his valedictory speech about the opportunity within this parliament for the House of Representatives committees to change their role somewhat. But unfortunately, under these kinds of timelines, there is an inability to appropriately consider legislation, as I think was intended originally under the new paradigm. It is unfortunate that in many cases much has been left wanting with these bill inquiries.

To the legislation itself, there is no doubt in my mind that this is really a fit-up. It is all about politics and not all that much about early years child care. It is difficult to rise and speak against a wage rise for people who are not highly paid, but when you realise, as I do, that the wage rise is only for a certain percentage of those in the industry—the government claims 40 per cent; in fact, others suggest it will only go so far as 27 per cent—and that the other 60 to 73 per cent will miss out, it is in itself very divisive.

Perhaps that is not that surprising because this government, this Prime Minister in particular, has chosen to be very divisive over a number of issues. There was the singling-out of wealthy miners. There is a case of dog whistling going on with the xenophobic calls around the 457s at the moment. There is certainly a tilt at men with blue ties. I would consider that the one I am wearing at the moment is a blue tie, but I do not think that that puts me in a box of unmentionable people. It is divisive within the industry. In fact, in the submissions made to the inquiry, Childcare Queensland, for instance, said:

The 27% - 40% of services that are successful in gaining the grant will only receive the funding for a period of two years as there is no provision for this grant funding to be continued past 30/06/2015. It will be extremely difficult for these services to reduce the wages at this time so they will all be forced to increase their fees by $10+ per child per day.

Kinda Kapers at Mount Hutton in New South Wales said:

This will create a two tiered wage system with centres who are not successful in attracting the grant money either dramatically increasing fees to enable them to match the wage increase or being unable to attract the very few trained staff who available for employment. Regional and rural centres will be most negatively affected as they are the centres currently most negatively impacted by the industry skill shortage.

I am sure you would understand that, Deputy Speaker Adams, as you do represent a large part of Tasmania that is regional.

That is a two-tiered system—there is no way of dressing that up. The big question is: what is to happen after the two years when the funding ceases? It is highly unlikely that these childcare centres will be able to encourage their staff to take a wage cut, and probably no-one would want to do that. So inevitably it will almost certainly lead to higher costs for those using the services. The other question, of course, is what happens to the 60 per cent to 73 per cent of childcare centres that do not get the extra funding in any case? I can tell you, Deputy Speaker, from the broad number of submissions that came in that a lot of people were very excited in the industry about the fact they may be getting a wage increase, only to be highly disillusioned when they found out that in fact it may not be coming their way. In fact, for the majority, it certainly will not be coming their way.

In particular, this divisiveness within the industry has caused widespread unhappiness. The Australian Childcare Alliance, for instance, noted that the announcement has already caused outrage and division amongst educators in the early education and childcare sector. Educators are understandably angry as their colleagues in the long day care centre across the road may receive the grant while they receive nothing. This is hardly a way to govern for all of Australia and I am very disappointed that the government should bring this legislation into the House dressed up as something which is benefiting the industry when in fact it is going to cause division and unhappiness throughout.

One of the things that particularly concerned the coalition members of the committee was the evidence we received about the campaign by the United Voice union with their Big Steps campaign which certainly preceded the government's announcement. It was commonly reported that the union was claiming centres could not qualify for the funding unless they had a 60 per cent unionised workforce. I am aware that the department wrote to one of the union officials and informed them what the correct state of play was, but we are given to understand that the campaign still continued and that, quite disturbingly, there was a sense of menace in the workplace. The Australian Childcare Alliance said:

During the last two years there has been considerable union activity at services Australia wide increasing substantially since the announcement of the EYQF grant by the Prime Minister. Many of our members have reported that this union activity has been intimidating to both themselves and their staff.

Our members around Australia have been advising us of the strong arm tactics that United Voice Union organisers who have been telling members that they must have 60 per cent plus membership to engage with them to submit the Enterprise Agreement.

Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, you would be very well aware that the minister for workplace relations only two weeks ago introduced legislation into this House around workplace bullying, which came after an inquiry that I was also the deputy chair of. While I did not agree with all of the recommendations that the government put forward on workplace bullying, we on the coalition were disappointed at the time the inquiry was formed that there was no provision to look at union bullying in the workplace. It would appear that it is alive and well. Certainly those quotes from the Australian Childcare Alliance say it all.

If that is the case and the union is using this government legislation to build membership, and they have lifted membership substantially around the campaign, it is worth noting that United Voice is a major contributor to the ALP. That synergy and those relationships that are behind the scenes are not clearly transparent on this legislation. It is one of the reasons that I will be voting against it. I think that the days of tip-offs and pay-offs for mates should be behind us. I believe the government will pay a heavy price for some of those links to the union movement in the very near future when the electors of Australia, perhaps on 14 September, come to have their judgment on this government.

All of us would like to see low-paid childcare workers adequately compensated in the workplace, but there is a course of action that workers and unions, if they wish, can take to achieve those wage outcomes. It was this government that established the Fair Work Commission, and there is a correct path for industry-wide wage increases should they choose to take that path. Up to this stage they have not chosen to do that. Instead they have done a deal with the government which will see, in effect, their members get the rewards and get the extra wage increase, and those who choose not to be members of the union will probably miss out. While I know that is not strictly the wording of the legislation, it is certainly the message that is out there in the workplace, and we should not allow that to happen.

I understand $300 million is about one-third of what is needed to give this $7 to $10 an hour increase that has been claimed as an outcome of this legislation and two years clearly is not adequate. It is just about a short-term time frame. In fact, I believe overall it creates more problems for the industry, more problems for the workers, than it solves. What it does do is try to push a political problem and a political kickback just a little further down the track and to push greater problems onto a government in two years time when this finding will cease. Whoever is in government at that time will be faced with a very loud call from those people who have been receiving the higher wages for government to continue what is, in effect, a subsidy. That will be at a time when childcare subsidies, the assistance for parents to purchase child care, will have been frozen. It is unbalanced; it is not good legislation.

It is divisive, to come back to my original point. It is pitting Australians against Australians. It will be pitting those who receive the money against those who miss out. It will be pitting long-term day care up against short-term day care and these are not good outcomes. What we need is fairness right across every industry in the way that we deal with people, not selectivity and not picking out favourites and giving kickbacks and support for those that support us. When either side of parliament forms a government, it should be for all Australians, not for selected Australians, and I will be opposing the legislation.

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on and oppose the Early Years Quality Fund Special Account Bill 2013, particularly from the perspective of the regional and rural centres. Those that I know in my electorate are going to be so badly affected by this. I know it because they have told me so. For those who are watching this debate tonight, I am sure this will lead to yet another sleepless night for them and I know they have had plenty of those since they first saw this legislation. We do know that this is just another rushed bill into this parliament. There has been no time for an appropriate parliamentary inquiry, as we heard from the two previous speakers.

Critically, this is just another piece of divisive legislation from this government and one that is really going to impact most on rural and regional day care centres. It is going to impact on the childcare centres in my electorate of Forrest because the legislation is basically going to establish a $300 million fund to provide wage increases to just around 30 or 40 per cent of just the long day care workforce, and only for two years. To achieve this the centres will have to enter into an enterprise bargaining agreement with their staff and meet the eligibility criteria. As we know, given that limited pool of funds, it will be on, what, a first-in first-served basis or preferential? How will it actually work? What we do know is that there is only funding for two years and it is all being done on borrowed money by the government. We do know this was part of the union United Voice's Big Steps campaign. We do know that childcare workers and educators are low paid and any wage increase should come about through the ruling of the Fair Work Commission. This is the body that this government itself established and it has the responsibility for determining what are appropriate and fair levels of remuneration. But we do know that United Voice, the union, has refused to lodge a wage claim with the Fair Work Commission, preferring instead for the government to just hand over the money but only to the favoured few. It is, as we know, just an appeasement to the unions and is really divisive.

This is picking winners and losers again with two types of child care: the educators in long day care centres that are eligible for the pay increase and those that are not, which will see family day care, occasional day care, budget based care excluded—there are so many of those in my electorate—in spite of the roles they perform being very similar. Two types of childcare workers: those who are union members of United Voice, who will receive this funding increase, and those who are not. Sixty per cent of childcare workers are going to miss out. The majority will miss out. So it is unfair and it is inequitable.

We know that the Australian Childcare Alliance represents approximately 70 per cent of Australia's long day care centres and they have grave concerns, as do their members. They have had a lot of representations from their members about what is contained in this bill. We know that there are still a lot of uncertainties around these actual grants, around the guidelines. We do not know what the guidelines are. We do not know how many workers will actually be eligible for the pay rise, but we do know how many will not: nearly 60 per cent of them will not in actual fact. And we do know that this will create a two-tiered system of those who receive this money and those who do not; those who are United Voice union members and those who are not.

I have met a number of those who work in long day care and those who work in other sorts of child care in my community. They are all very concerned that their very good staff will be poached by the centres that can afford to offer the higher rate. I do know that there are managers and owners of centres in my electorate who are not sleeping, as I said, as a result of this. This threatens the very viability of their childcare and day care centres. They know that they are probably going to have to offer that higher rate of pay regardless, just to keep their staff. As I said, this will have a disproportionate impact in rural and regional areas like my own. They will have to do that to adhere to the National Quality Framework staffing requirements.

There were thousands of submissions to the Senate inquiry, but the government allowed only a few days for reporting, so the process has been flawed. Not only is the legislation flawed and the intent of the legislation flawed, so has been the process. But it is something that is quite common with this government. I keep coming back to the fact that the government is proposing legislation where 60 per cent of centres will miss out and they will be likely forced to increase wages just to keep their staff. That is what will happen. That means that the parents are going to pay more.

Long day care KU Children's Services stated in a submission to the inquiry that the introduction of this fund to a portion of the sector will result in a division within the organisation. That is guaranteed, it is there now. The government has created this. KU Children's Services pointed out that since the 1980s many have worked tirelessly to remove the divide between preschool and long day care, yet the government has reignited that, driven a wedge down the middle and said, 'Here you are: 60 per cent this side, 30 to 40 per cent the other.'

As the Child Care Association of WA pointed out in their submission, the bill does not consider the outcome of the fund on the sector as a whole. The government is also failing to allow time for the grants guidelines to be published before proceeding with the bill—process flawed again. Many of the submissions to both the House and Senate inquiries from centres have been extensively noting a campaign of union misinformation and quite seriously, as we heard, in some cases bullying of centre owners and childcare workers.

I also heard that, as part of the Big Steps, United Voice's campaign, evidence or information was given to the effect that someone posted a photograph on Facebook of the home of the president of the Australian Childcare Alliance. With the work that I do in cyberbullying I find that just extraordinary. What form of bullying is that? Is that what we have come to in this place? That is exactly what this legislation has provoked. Some workers have been told that if they do not sign up to their union, their colleagues will not receive a pay rise. Claims were made throughout those inquiries. One union stated, under the heading 'How does my centre qualify?':

1. Join United Voice.

2. United Voice negotiates a new EBA.

3. Sign agreement. Owner-operator signs agreements with government.

4. Get the raise.

Despite the department claiming that the actual amount of wage increase was to be determined by a seven-member panel, United Voice provided a handy chart for members, telling them exactly what they would get. So, clearly, United Voice knows more than the panel itself. Of course, this is a poorly designed and inequitable proposal, but it certainly will have far-reaching negative impacts, particularly on regional and rural areas, on regional and rural centres and, more importantly, on the families that rely on those great services provided.

I want to acknowledge the wonderful job that centres in my electorate of Forrest do for families, who trust them to provide quality day care for their children. The service they provide allows parents to return to workplaces as needed, knowing that their children are safe and sound in a supportive, nurturing, caring and learning environment. In the two regional cities of Bunbury and Busselton in my electorate hundreds of families rely on this service, yet the government is putting that at risk. There are 43 childcare centres in the greater Bunbury area and another 17 based in Busselton and Dunsborough, not to mention another dozen or so in the wonderful little country towns throughout the Forrest electorate. The structural changes that the government has made will have a particular impact on these regional centres where there is already an ongoing need and a shortage of qualified staff. I heard about this from the childcare centres.

There is a major financial cost. Established centres are now fearful of their future. That is what this proposal has done. They are fearful of their future and their capacity to provide this great service to families in my electorate. By offering that government funded wage rise to perhaps one-third of the centres just so that centres are able to keep their staff and attract new ones, the Labor government has created division, inequity and a wage war between centres. For a medium-sized private childcare centre the costs are in the extreme. To match the wage rise of $3 to $4, the owner of one Bunbury childcare centre, with 20 staff, told me that it will cost her business $200,000 a year in extra wages and associated payments. A medium-sized centre like this one has about 150 to 200 families, which rely on the centre to provide quality child care, which they trust, and they do it at an affordable price for these families. So to absorb a wage blow-out of $200,000, centres will be forced—they have no choice; they cannot absorb this cost—to raise their fees, possibly by $10 a day per child.

So, for the working families in my electorate, this is about another $200 a month on top of their current fees. This is what is happening right now. I have spoken with childcare centres. The owners and managers of these centres are not sleeping, worrying about the impact on the families and how many children they will lose and whether their centres will be viable. Unfortunately, this will make the unionised government-funded centres more attractive for families because of cheaper rates, which they can afford.

When a child in care costs about the same as a mortgage payment, this has huge impacts on families making decisions about whether they can afford another child or whether one parent has no choice but to drop out of the workplace. I have seen firsthand the anguish and the fear of the childcare centre owner. I referred to her earlier. It is palpable and I know that she is not sleeping. Her feelings are shared by about a dozen others who attended childcare forums I put on two weeks ago with the shadow minister for childcare, Sussan Ley. They realise that they will be forced to pay the extra wages. It is a blatant exercise by the government to impose a political allegiance to and ideology on its union masters in a sector whose primary goal should really be that of being there for the benefit of these great kids and their families by providing great child care.

Of course, this proposal is divisive and unfair. It is an issue of equity and fairness. The government is proposing only two years of funding. Parents will have to pay even more beyond that two years. Sixty per cent of parents in my electorate who will not be funded under this legislation will have to pay now. Of course, the other 40 per cent will pay the extra beyond the two years, because the government has only funded this for two years. So it is a false promise. Centres are forced to pay more just to retain their staff. They are great staff, who do a fantastic job with our young people.

As I have said, only union members will receive this benefit. So many of them right now around Australia must believe that they are actually going to receive this pay rise—that is, after they have paid their union fees. But I wonder how many, in reality, will actually receive it. I wonder how much they will receive over and above the union fees for what they do. I am profoundly concerned for the childcare centres in my electorate. I have met their staff. As I said, their concern and fear about their viability is palpable and the impact on the 60 per cent of families who will miss out will be direct, and then it will be compounded after the two years when the funding runs out. I oppose this measure.

Debate adjourned.